It looks like Progressive candidates, all three with Mayor Mamdani’s endorsement, swept Democratic Party primaries in New York on Tuesday against candidates with Party support. (Paywall).

“Some of the night’s most potent victories for Mamdani’s branch of the party saw DSA-backed political newcomers Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier defeating establishment-endorsed candidates, signaling a potent fusion of Mamdani’s grassroots popularity with the DSA’s organizing machine. Avila Chevalier attended a pro-Palestinian rally in 2023 in New York City the day after the Oct. 7 attacks in Israel that was criticized for including speakers who appeared to justify the violence.”

“Elsewhere, former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, also backed by Mamdani, soundly beat incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman in a heated election that also centered on U.S. policy toward Israel and the war in Gaza. Lander supports blocking military aid to Israel.”

This is an extraordinary result, and it’s not confined to New York:

“Progressives have romped through Democrats’ spring primaries, notching a series of wins across both safe and competitive districts and upending House and Senate Democrats’ battleplans. Left flank candidates Randy Villegas and Matt Dunlap trounced the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s preferred picks in a pair of battlegrounds in California and Maine.”

Two of the winners are aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America, and Brad Lander defeated an incumbent Congressman, Dan Goldman, who held the seat since 2022 and was on the impeachment prosecution team. Lander defeated him by 2-1 with support for Israel the main issue.

Democrats need to think very carefully about what to take away from these results. Candidates who don’t offer change from the MAGA status quo, work to protect workers from oligarchs, and clearly condemn genocide in Israel will continue to lose.

I, among others, have argued that Kamala Harris lost the 2024 Presidential election for two key reasons: continued support for Biden’s Israel policy as evidence of genocide in Gaza mounted, and failure to push back more aggressively against Donald Trump’s fascist project to destroy American democracy and corruptly fatten his own wallet. While the official 2024 election “autopsy” mentions neither of these factors, an independent review by Action for a Progressive Future argues that Harris lost because she refused to shift (or at least signal a shift) in Israel policy and focused on corporate donor interests rather than working class voters.

These are of course not the only reasons Harris lost (Biden’s refusal to bow out early enough to allow for a formal nomination process likely mattered more), but Democratic Party voters (rightfully, I believe) are getting a sense that the institutional Democratic Party seems just as happy to meet the needs of corporate and wealthy donors, including interest groups like the American-Israeli Public Affairs Council (AIPAC) and data center developers, as Republicans.

Grassroots Democrats are beginning to feel like the status quo works very well for Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries and the Democratic consultant class, and this is why current Democratic Party leaders don’t want to make any huge waves. In this view, implementing progressive policies like Medicare for All, a brake on police powers (especially ICE), tax reform that closes the wealth gap (e.g., higher inheritance taxes), and reduction of military spending would hurt the corporations and people who have created the current economy with help from both Republican and Democratic officials.

Tuesday’s results suggest that there is something to this. Voters in these races sent a very clear message: the status quo does not work for us, and we want to elect officials who will no-kidding do something to fix it. They want to vote for people who will push back against the MAGA program and the oligarchy created by tech billionaires, so they pushed back against establishment Democrats and the institutional Democratic Party.

Voters said that if you’re not going to more aggressively to block Trump and his minions, we don’t want your candidate. Even moderates who won on less progressive platforms did so by promising to push back against MAGA.

Now, Virginia is not New York, and the First Congressional District is not New York City, but we may have a similar scenario playing out here. Seven Democrats have lined up to compete in an August 4 primary for a chance to go up against Republican Rob Wittman in November, and both the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and Democratic Party of Virginia (DPVA)  have lined up behind an establishment candidate, Shannon Taylor.

In February, the DCCC added Taylor to their “Red to Blue” program, meaning Democratic Members of Congress support her as a group and will assist with fundraising and events.

“Red to Blue is a highly competitive and battle-tested DCCC program that arms top-tier candidates with organizational and fundraising support to help them continue building winning campaigns. Additionally, through Red to Blue the DCCC provides strategic guidance, staff resources, candidate trainings, fundraising support, and more.”

The DCCC is focusing on this race because Abigail Spanberger won the district in her gubernatorial race last year and they take this as a sign that the First is less red than it was. To be sure, the First has changed a lot demographically in six years (especially Henrico and Chesterfield Counties), but since Ghazala Hashmi and Jay Jones both lost the district in 2025, I think Spanberger’s win had more to do with her opponent than a shift in the electorate toward Democrats.

Section 10.11 of the Democratic Party of Virginia Party Plan prohibits formal DPVA endorsement of candidates during a primary, but it’s clear that the DPVA establishment has lined up behind Taylor. Governor Spanberger endorsed her back in December, and her website shows endorsements from an exhaustive list of elected Democratic Party officials, including both US Senators, former Governors Northam and McAuliffe, every Member of Congress from Virginia except for Bobby Scott. The list also includes former AG Mark Herring, six State Senators including Louise Lucas, twelve Delegates, County Supervisors, Sheriffs, and Commonwealth Attorneys.  

Much of their calculation likely depends on a belief that Taylor has the best chance of defeating Wittman in a general election, but I’m not so sure. Yes, establishment support probably means she would have a higher fundraising ceiling than more progressive candidates, but voters are looking for help with real problems like health care. Her “People First Agenda” does mention health care affordability but centers her campaign heavily on fighting corruption. She would prohibit stock trading by members of Congress and ban them from becoming lobbyists for life. She would also mandate prison time for elected officials convicted of violating the public trust and suggests her experience as a prosecutor makes her the best candidate to implement such an agenda.

I see two problems with this logic. First, establishment Democrats don’t exactly have a history of fighting corruption in Congress, and most voters will see the DCCC endorsement and have difficulty believing that Taylor would work very hard to take away their ability to cash in on election to Congress. The $800K from Dominion doesn’t help give her a reputation for protecting working people from corporations, either.

Further, the Strotman NICU case, whatever the merits of the plea deal Taylor accepted, will be the core of a Rovian attack from the right on her prosecutorial career as a defender of all that is right and good. They’ll go after her greatest strength, just as the Swift Boat Veterans went after Kerry’s. Taylor has blamed sentencing guidelines that would cap Strotman’s punishment at six months, but the maximum sentence under the law is 45 years, and the judge in the case imposed that sentence, with all but three suspended. Whether or not this makes legal sense, this case is emotionally charged and custom made for a right-wing social media attack on Taylor’s record. As we’ve found out, the right cares only about effectiveness, not truth.

I’m no soothsayer (though I correctly predicted that SCOVA would shut down the effort to gerrymander 10 Democratic House districts), but I think in today’s political environment Taylor is actually the least likely to defeat Wittman for many of the same reasons Harris didn’t defeat Trump. Taylor says nothing about how fighting corruption would make health care, or groceries, or gasoline more affordable for working people. And yes, she rejects corporate PAC money on her website but accepted about $800K from Dominion when running for State level offices in the past. In Virginia taking campaign contributions from Dominion Energy does not scream “anti-corruption public official” and the rapid falling in line of establishment Dems, who would also have to give up corruption in the form of insider trading, does not soften this blow.

Shannon Taylor’s is not an openly progressive agenda, and her campaign depends on her career as a prosecutor and connections to establishment figures and donor networks. This is not a recipe for winning over the young progressive voters she’ll need to win.

Progressives, especially the young voters Democrats need to win back, will vote third party or stay home because they perceive the Party doing to progressive candidates in this race what they did to Bernie Sanders, and to avoid the “they’re all the same in the end” choice. The right will use Strotman to mobilize voters who normally pass on Congressional midterm races.

Five of Taylor’s opponents run as more-or-less open progressives with platforms that include universal health care, raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations, demilitarizing the police, and reducing US spending on the military. They all support prosecuting Trump and others for the crimes they’ve committed while in office (e.g., emoluments clause violations, pay to play government contracts, and cryptocurrency scams). All of them have a better sense of the political moment than Taylor and establishment Democrats.

Elizabeth Dempsey-Beggs, a former Army Armor officer and Tank Company Commander, frames her campaign as a continuation of service, and has an extensive Issues page on her website. She identifies herself as a Progressive on social media, and lists “Social Justice” (defined as “equal treatment under the law, safe communities, and defending the rights of all Virginians”) on her issues page, along with affordability, health care, and immigration.

Salaam Bhatti, a “public interest lawyer,” openly campaigns as a progressive candidate. He has experience managing legislative efforts to expand SNAP and school meals. He openly supports Medicare for All and the issue page on his website clearly states that he thinks the US must “…withhold offensive and defensing funding from Israel until they stop committing genocide and human rights violations.”

Tim Cywinski’s Fair Shot Agenda stands on three legs: ending “big money” in politics, taxing corporations instead of workers, and building a “fair economy” grounded in dignity. Cywinski campaigns as a progressive, and his issue page is probably the most extensive of the seven, including progressive movement wish list items like universal health care, taxing corporations, and moratoriums on data centers.

Jason Knapp, a retired Navy Commander and FA-18 pilot, also frames his campaign as a continuation of service, and also has an extensive issues page. Knapp does not clearly identify as a progressive, but holds progressive positions on most issues, though does not openly support Medicare for All or some other form of universal health care.

Ericka Kopp, a healthcare lawyer, calls herself a “People First Democratic Advocate” and campaigns as a progressive candidate. Her priorities list includes a variety of progressive initiatives, including abolishment of ICE, codifying Roe v Wade and Obergefell, and “taxing the rich.”  Ericka calls herself a change candidate and argues that we need bold new leadership.

Mel Tull, a self-described “business lawyer,” frames himself as someone who can “bring a practical, solutions-focused approach to Washington,” with “Not just priorities. Plans.” These plans look like a pretty good rundown of a generic Democratic Party platform and do not include support for universal health care or raising taxes on corporations or the wealthy. For example, he would address wealth inequality “through public education and workforce training,” which is unlikely to make much of a dent. Tull seems to be claiming the centrist, practical lane in this primary, and if you think the answer to Wittman is a centrist Democrat, Tull is your guy since he’s not connected with establishment Dem donors and the consultant class.

All these candidates have flaws, and all have vulnerabilities the right will use to attack them. But each one of them has excited a voter base hungry for fundamental change from the status quo that makes their daily lives easier and more secure (no more health care debt bankruptcy), reduces the power of billionaires and oligarchs, protects them from tech gone wild in the form of data centers, and ends taxpayer support to countries that commit genocide. None of this is a knock on Shannon Taylor. She’s a fine person and an excellent prosecutor. She has won elections in the past. But I don’t think her candidacy meets the political moment.